Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: aldo_14 on September 11, 2005, 06:10:54 pm

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: aldo_14 on September 11, 2005, 06:10:54 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050911/pl_nm/arms_usa_nuclear_dc

[q]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Defense Department has written a draft revision of its nuclear operations doctrine that outlines the use of nuclear weapons to pre-empt an enemy's attack with weapons of mass destruction, according to a copy of the document available online on Saturday.

The draft "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," dated March 15, revised the "discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

According to the document, combatant commanders could request approval from the president to use nuclear weapons under a variety of scenarios, such as to pre-empt an enemy's use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, multinational or alliance forces or civilian populations.

Commanders could seek approval to use nuclear weapons in the face of an enemy's imminent biological weapons attack that "only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy," the document said.

The draft also envisioned nuclear weapon use in attacks on enemy installations containing weapons of mass destruction, among other scenarios.

A Defense Department spokesman told Reuters the document had not yet been given to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. It is due to be signed within the next few weeks by the director of the Joint Staff, the spokesman said.

The unclassified document was available on numerous Web sites such as GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy Web site. A
Pentagon site, however, listed the document as unavailable.

Other scenarios envisioned in the draft doctrine include nuclear weapons use to counter potentially overwhelming conventional forces, for rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms, to demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter enemy use of weapons of mass destruction, and to respond to the use of weapons of mass destruction supplied by an enemy to a "surrogate."

The document said "numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal)" and about 30 countries have programs for weapons of mass destruction.

"Further, the possible use of WMD by nonstate actors either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state, remain a significant proliferation concern," the draft said. [/q]

The bold bit is my highlight.  Note that the last condition would allow  a nuclear attack on, say, Syria or Iran if they suspected (no need for proof, it would seem) them supplying WMD used in a terrorist attack.  The 2nd last could be used to justify nuclear attacks on pretty much any nation in the US target list.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Shrike on September 11, 2005, 06:15:59 pm

Honestly, it's not like the US hasn't had a first-use policy for nuclear weapons for generations now anyhow.  Given the incredible political repercussions of actually using nuclear weapons, I imagine they will remain as last resorts.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: WMCoolmon on September 11, 2005, 06:25:05 pm

I dislike the general direction this is headed.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: achtung on September 11, 2005, 06:27:36 pm

I saw an ariticle over this stuff in pop-sci about a month ago.  They were talking about using nuclear bunker busters.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Galemp on September 11, 2005, 06:33:26 pm

why do we hate us

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Carl on September 11, 2005, 06:40:59 pm

basically this is a scare tactic. they want their enemies to think that they would actually use them, even though in reality they won't, unless they ever get around to developing those sub-kiloton nukes they were talking about a while ago.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: vyper on September 11, 2005, 07:02:24 pm

Except the enemies they're trying to scare wouldn't care.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: achtung on September 11, 2005, 07:21:17 pm

Quote

Originally posted by vyper
Except the enemies they're trying to scare wouldn't care.

Irradiated Martyrs?

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: deep_eyes on September 11, 2005, 07:21:53 pm

the US is just mad that they didnt make these Neutron bombs decades ago that woulda took out entire areas of people without damaging too much the structures housing them....

engh.... we always have MOABS...

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Kosh on September 11, 2005, 09:34:13 pm

I wonder why they call it the "defence department" and not what it really is: The Offence department.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: BlackDove on September 11, 2005, 09:47:50 pm

Sounds good for the Americas.

I'd want that kind of defense where I lvie.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Bobboau on September 11, 2005, 09:54:18 pm

the best defence is a good offence. :)

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: IceFire on September 11, 2005, 09:56:45 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Kosh
I wonder why they call it the "defence department" and not what it really is: The Offence department.

It was deemed too offensive :)

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Night Hammer on September 11, 2005, 10:05:29 pm

Quote

Originally posted by deep_eyes
engh.... we always have MOABS...

who needs nukes when weve got these beasts :yes:

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: MatthewPapa on September 11, 2005, 10:45:32 pm

When it talkes about 'overwhelming conventional forces' I wonder if it means N Korea/China

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: achtung on September 11, 2005, 10:50:16 pm

Quote

Originally posted by MatthewPapa
When it talkes about 'overwhelming conventional forces' I wonder if it means N Korea/China

meh.......

Spoiler:

probably just the rest of the world:D

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Kosh on September 11, 2005, 10:58:22 pm

It used to mean the Russians.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Ford Prefect on September 11, 2005, 11:12:08 pm

Does anyone else think that America is starting to sound like a crystal meth junkie?

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Night Hammer on September 12, 2005, 12:01:49 am

most people arent from Long Island and know what a meth junkie sounds like:p

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Ford Prefect on September 12, 2005, 01:21:59 am

I'm not from Long Island, just here for college. I'm from Massachusetts.

Using meth causes extreme levels of paranoia, which was the key link in my (hopefully) straightforward simile.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Mefustae on September 12, 2005, 02:10:21 am

Quote

Originally posted by Carl
basically this is a scare tactic. they want their enemies to think that they would actually use them, even though in reality they won't, unless they ever get around to developing those sub-kiloton nukes they were talking about a while ago.

Remember, these are the bastards that have used the Bomb before, and you're insane if you think they won't use it again. Seriously, if they start using the Bomb, who's going to stop them? Who is capable of stopping them? And, most poigniently, who would muster the courage to stand up to a nation with the largest active Nuclear Arsenal in the world?

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: NGTM-1R on September 12, 2005, 02:11:50 am

I see nothing here that did not exist ten or twenty years ago.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Bobboau on September 12, 2005, 02:44:10 am

"bastards"?
other than that, yeah.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Shrike on September 12, 2005, 03:16:26 am

Quote

Originally posted by deep_eyes
the US is just mad that they didnt make these Neutron bombs decades ago that woulda took out entire areas of people without damaging too much the structures housing them....

engh.... we always have MOABS...

Actually, they did make them.  But unlike the general idea that it's a 'conqueror's bomb', neutron bombs are only really effective against military targets due to their low yields (1-ish kiloton).  They still explode just like a normal nuke, they just have increased neutron emissions; the original intent was to use them to counter Soviet armored formations which are by their nature highly resistant to more conventional blast-overpressure nukes.

Would they have actually worked?  I can't say.  Would they allow 'clean' conquests simply by killing civilians and leaving everything mostly undamaged?  Certainly not.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Mefustae on September 12, 2005, 03:34:14 am

Quote

Originally posted by Bobboau
"bastards"?
other than that, yeah.

Heh, yeah, sorry if you took offense to that, I meant the people in charge of making this sort of plan, and those that would gladly put it into action and destroy the world rather than see the American way of life destroyed (hey, should it come down to it, the US would gladly destroy all life on the planet, in the mindset of 'if we can't exist, nobody can'). If you've heard the speech by President Truman a short time after the bombing of Hiroshima, in which he says something along the lines of 'we've used it, and we're going to keep using it until the US is victorious', you'll know exactly what I mean by 'bastards'...

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Shrike on September 12, 2005, 01:45:44 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Mefustae
Heh, yeah, sorry if you took offense to that, I meant the people in charge of making this sort of plan, and those that would gladly put it into action and destroy the world rather than see the American way of life destroyed (hey, should it come down to it, the US would gladly destroy all life on the planet, in the mindset of 'if we can't exist, nobody can'). If you've heard the speech by President Truman a short time after the bombing of Hiroshima, in which he says something along the lines of 'we've used it, and we're going to keep using it until the US is victorious', you'll know exactly what I mean by 'bastards'...

Do you have any proof whatsoever for this?  Feel free to post links and sources.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: aldo_14 on September 12, 2005, 01:52:44 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Shrike
Do you have any proof whatsoever for this?  Feel free to post links and sources.

I think he must mean this
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/hiroshim/truman1.html

[q]IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- August 6, 1945

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of T.N.T. It had more than two thousand times the blast power of the British "Grand Slam" which is the largest bomb ever yet used in the history of warfare.

The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold. And the end is not yet. With this bomb we have now added a new and revolutionary increase in destruction to supplement the growing power of our armed forces. In their present form these bombs are now in production and even more powerful forms are in development.

It is an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East.

Before 1939, it was the accepted belief of scientists that it was theoretically possible to release atomic energy. But no one knew any practical method of doing it. By 1942, however, we knew that the Germans were working feverishly to find a way to add atomic energy to the other engines of war with which they hoped to enslave the world. But they failed. We may be grateful to Providence that the Germans got the V-1's and the V-2's late and in limited quantities and even more grateful that they did not get the atomic bomb at all.

The battle of the laboratories held fateful risks for us as well as the battles of the air, land, and sea, and we have now won the battle of the laboratories as we have won the other battles.

Beginning in 1940, before Pearl Harbor, scientific knowledge useful in war was pooled between the United States and Great Britain, and many priceless helps to our victories have come from that arrangement. Under that general policy the research on the atomic bomb was begun. With American and British scientists working together we entered the race of discovery against the Germans.

The United States had available the large number of scientists of distinction in the many needed areas of knowledge. It had the tremendous industrial and financial resources necessary for the project and they could be devoted to it without undue impairment of other vital war work. In the United States the laboratory work and the production plants, on which a substantial start had already been made, would be out of reach of enemy bombing, while at that time Britain was exposed to constant air attack and was still threatened with the possibility of invasion. For these reasons Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt agreed that it was wise to carry on the project here. We now have two great plants and many lesser works devoted to the production of atomic power. Employment during peak construction numbered 125,000 and over 65,000 individuals are even now engaged in operating the plants. Many have worked there for two and a half years. Few know what they have been producing. They see great quantities of material going in and they see nothing coming out of those plants, for the physical size of the explosive charge is exceedingly small. We have spent two billion dollars on the greatest scientific gamble in history - and won.

But the greatest marvel is not the size of the enterprise, its secrecy, nor its cost, but the achievement of scientific brains in putting together infinitely complex pieces of knowledge held by many men in different fields of science into a workable plan. And hardly less marvelous has been the capacity of industry to design, and of labor to operate, the machines and methods to do things never done before so that the brain child of many minds came forth in physical shape and performed as it was supposed to do. Both science and industry worked under the direction of the United States Army, which achieved a unique success in managing so diverse a problem in the advancement of knowledge in an amazingly short time. It is doubtful if such another combination could be got together in the world. What has been done is the greatest achievement of organized science in history. It was done under high pressure and without failure.

We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war.

It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.

The Secretary of War, who has kept in personal touch with all phases of the project, will immediately make public a statement giving further details.

His statement will give facts concerning the sites at Oak Ridge near Knoxville, Tennessee, and at Richland near Pasco, Washington, and an installation near Santa Fe, New Mexico. Although the workers at the sites have been making materials to be used in producing the greatest destructive force in history they have not themselves been in danger beyond that of many other occupations, for the utmost care has been taken of their safety.

The fact that we can release atomic energy ushers in a new era in man's understanding of nature's forces. Atomic energy may in the future supplement the power that now comes from coal, oil, and falling water, but at present it cannot be produced on a basis to compete with them commercially. Before that comes there must be a long period of intensive research.

It has never been the habit of the scientists of this country or the policy of this Government to withhold from the world scientific knowledge. Normally, therefore, everything about the work with atomic energy would be made public.

But under present circumstances it is not intended to divulge the technical processes of production or all the military applications, pending further examination of possible methods of protecting us and the rest of the world from the danger of sudden destruction.

I shall recommend that the Congress of the United States consider promptly the establishment of an appropriate commission to control the production and use of atomic power within the United States. I shall give further consideration and make further recommendations to the Congress as to how atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence towards the maintenance of world peace.[/q]

I've highlighted what would be the key bits in this context

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: karajorma on September 12, 2005, 02:08:13 pm

To be fair to Truman the speech is almost entirely bluff seeing as at the time he made it he didn't actually have any other nukes to throw at Japan anyway.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Janos on September 12, 2005, 02:28:27 pm

Quote

Originally posted by deep_eyes
the US is just mad that they didnt make these Neutron bombs decades ago that woulda took out entire areas of people without damaging too much the structures housing them....

engh.... we always have MOABS...

Actually a neutron bomb is not like that. It's useful if used en masse against enemy armoured columns.

Tanks are very resistant against heat and shockwave - usual destructive powers both in conventional and nuclear non-directed explosive devices. However, like most objects they're not very resistant to radiation. A neutron bomb of yield X will have smaller destrucive range than a normal tactical nuke of yield X, but will release much more short-term radiation. Some guy said that "a neutron bomb will kill tank crew instantly from 600 meters whereas normal nukes of similar yield would kill them instantly from 200 meters or even less".

Point being? A huge neutron bomb would still leave residual radiation. It would also render some landmass uninhabitable for at least couple of days. It does not just zap out radiation - it's a nuke, a very expensive one, pretty weak in traditional terms and only useful if you drop a ****load of them into an enemy armoured army corps staging area. Also, the half-life of tritium being what it is (12 years I think but I might be wrong), the sum that is poured in keeping the neutron bomb operative is... impressive. It 's a huge, ineffectual gamma ray emitter which also ****s up terrain pretty well.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: TrashMan on September 12, 2005, 04:27:03 pm

A pakistanian terrorist has blown a plain! Nuke Pakistan! That will tech the bastards... Guess that's the working principle.

As crazy as it sounds, would you actually attack the US if your family, friends, dog, city and country may pay DEARLY for it?

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Cobra on September 12, 2005, 04:46:17 pm

i say decree the thing, get our people, the women and children out of there, bomb the bastards and get on with our lives.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: vyper on September 12, 2005, 04:49:28 pm

Eh?

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: karajorma on September 12, 2005, 04:49:45 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Cobra
i say decree the thing, get our people, the women and children out of there, bomb the bastards and get on with our lives.

I say you're a f**king idiot for saying that.

The level of stupidity and racism involved for anyone to say that astounds me.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Cobra on September 12, 2005, 04:50:43 pm

simple. get everyone from the US, the women and children from iraq who aren't involved, then nuke the place.

[EDIT] i don't see how that could be a racist comment, kara.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: aldo_14 on September 12, 2005, 04:52:56 pm

Quote

Originally posted by TrashMan
A pakistanian terrorist has blown a plain! Nuke Pakistan! That will tech the bastards... Guess that's the working principle.

As crazy as it sounds, would you actually attack the US if your family, friends, dog, city and country may pay DEARLY for it?

That's why a lot of them are attacking the US; because the US (and also the UK, etc) is killing civillians in retaliation for attacks.  Terrorists by definition don't care about others. only inflicting terror.  Suicide bombers especially.

And if the US actually acted on this, and launched pre-emptive strikes on the likes of Iran, Syria or North Korea it would quite simply open the gates of hell.  Not only would any nuclear nation be able to justify a pre-emptive nuclear strike (say, Russia on Chechnya, India / Pakistan on each other, China on Taiwan), but it could conceivably for a catalyst for a new cold (or hot) war as the response, as nations form defensive blocks against the nuclear threat of the US (or simply to counter the potential threat).  And that's ignoring the other consequences; how would China react to fallout from a strike on NK?  What would be the impact upon global oil access if an Arab state was hit?

Yeah, if you break it down into kiddy terms, it sounds almost sensible... you hit me and I'll kill your family has always been an effect form of, well, terrorism.  But the actual geopolitical consequences would be terrifying.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: aldo_14 on September 12, 2005, 04:56:58 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Cobra
simple. get everyone from the US, the women and children from iraq who aren't involved, then nuke the place.

[EDIT] i don't see how that could be a racist comment, kara.

Would you nuke Oklahoma because Timophy McVeigh was born there?

And isn't it terrorism to bomb families and friends because of who they know?  Even if they're dark skinned or speak a different language.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Cobra on September 12, 2005, 04:58:38 pm

hmm.. i guess you have a point there.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: TrashMan on September 12, 2005, 05:36:56 pm

Quote

Originally posted by aldo_14


That's why a lot of them are attacking the US; because the US (and also the UK, etc) is killing civillians in retaliation for attacks.  Terrorists by definition don't care about others. only inflicting terror.  Suicide bombers especially.

Untrue - they do have their friends and family like anyone else.
I suppoe iut's not only hte religious thing, but allso the desire to protect their country from US maddling.

If attacking the US may get your ccountry nuked and millions of belivers killed in a instant, would you really dare to attack? Let's not forget that in an all-out religious war mulims would be pretty much f**** as the greatest technogogy and military firepower is not in their hands....

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: karajorma on September 12, 2005, 05:39:27 pm

I doubt any of them believe that America would be stupid enough to start nuking muslim countries. For a start it would mean that they'd lose all access to any oil from the middle east.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: aldo_14 on September 12, 2005, 05:46:11 pm

Quote

Originally posted by TrashMan


Untrue - they do have their friends and family like anyone else.
I suppoe iut's not only hte religious thing, but allso the desire to protect their country from US maddling.

If attacking the US may get your ccountry nuked and millions of belivers killed in a instant, would you really dare to attack? Let's not forget that in an all-out religious war mulims would be pretty much f**** as the greatest technogogy and military firepower is not in their hands....

I don't think you understand; they (terrorists) already believe that is happening.  They're not afraid to die, because they believe they will be rewared - and the same for their family and friends, etc.  You can't scare someone with dying, if they've already embraced it.

Look at the London bomber who had a wife and kids, for example - did he care about his family?  I doubt it. Or the Palestinian bombers, who know the Israeli army will bulldoze their homes as a result of what they do.

  Plus, despite their insanity and fanatacism, they know the US can't really do that, because of the consequences.  And that if the US did, it would destroy itself in the process; it's standing within the world, it's economic power, and it's access to resources.  For that reason, they might even welcome it; unless the US nukes the entire Arab world (which would destroy the access to resources there and turn the rest of the world against them), a single nuclear attack will only militarize the rest of the middle east.

It's not as if the US would pull back from Iraq because of terrorism, after all; and these guys are leagues ahead of the US in terms of fanatacism.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Janos on September 12, 2005, 11:27:34 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Cobra
simple. get everyone from the US, the women and children from iraq who aren't involved, then nuke the place.

[EDIT] i don't see how that could be a racist comment, kara.

Uhhh... So it's ok to invade a country and lie to get some kind of casus belli, and when things get rough just go "eh **** it" and nuke it?

It's like Canada says USA hates honey and attacks and invades USA. When things get rough and it's evident that USA does not, in fact, hate honey, Canada nukes them.

Logic wins again!

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Cobra on September 13, 2005, 05:59:34 pm

that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

besides, that's just my opinion. it's not like i have an influence over the military, right?

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: aldo_14 on September 13, 2005, 06:10:20 pm

Quote

Originally posted by Cobra
that made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

besides, that's just my opinion. it's not like i have an influence over the military, right?

Well, if you read it again;

US lies to get a valid reason to go to war with a nation (casus belli is the formal list of reasons for going to war; i.e. WMD would be the US casus belli for war with Iraq)

US gets bogged down in Iraq.  (also changes casus belli at some point to being 'freeing Iraqis and installing a democracy - :lol:)

[q]
simple. get everyone from the US, the women and children from iraq who aren't involved, then nuke the place.[/q]

US nukes Iraq.  Everyone (well, all men - innocent or otherwise) dies.  Any hope of peace in the Middle East or an end to Muslim hatred of the west is destroyed.  Both casus bellis (preventing use of WMD, 'liberating' Iraqis from Saddam ) have been contradicted.

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Wild Fragaria on September 14, 2005, 11:20:07 am

Quote

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
I'm not from Long Island, just here for college. I'm from Massachusetts.

Using meth causes extreme levels of paranoia, which was the key link in my (hopefully) straightforward simile.

Do you go to Stony Brook?

Title: US: Preemptive nuking to be ok?
Post by: Ford Prefect on September 14, 2005, 11:23:07 am

Yes I do, as a matter of fact.